General Assembly Session 53 meeting 43

The President

In accordance with General Assembly decision 42/450 of 17 December 1987, the Assembly elects the members of the Committee for Programme and Coordination upon their nomination by the Economic and Social Council.

The Assembly has before it document A/53/440, which contains the nominations by the Economic and Social Council to fill the vacancies in the Committee that will occur as a result of the expiration on 31 December 1998 of the terms of office of China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Egypt, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Togo and Uruguay.

Those States are eligible for immediate re-election.

I should like to remind members that, after 1 January 1999, the following States will still be members of the Committee: Argentina, Austria, the Bahamas, Brazil, Cameroon, the Congo, France, Germany, Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Italy, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, Ukraine, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

Accordingly, those 26 States are not eligible in this election.

I should now like to inform members that the following States have been nominated by the Economic and Social Council. There are two African States for three vacancies: Benin and Egypt. There is one Latin American and Caribbean State for one vacancy: Uruguay. There are three Asian States for three vacancies: China, Japan and the Republic of Korea.

In accordance with rule 92 of the rules of procedure, all elections should be held by secret ballot. However, in accordance with paragraph 16 of decision 34/401, the Assembly may, in elections to subsidiary organs, dispense with secret balloting when the number of candidates corresponds to the number of seats to be filled.

The number of States nominated from among the African States, the Asian States and the Latin American and Caribbean States is equal to or does not exceed the number of seats to be filled in each of those regions.

May I therefore take it that the Assembly wishes to declare those States nominated by the Economic and Social Council from among the African States, the Asian States and the Latin American and Caribbean States -- namely, Benin, China, Egypt, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Uruguay -- elected members of the Committee for Programme and Coordination for a three-year term beginning on 1 January 1999?

The President

I congratulate the States that have been elected members of the Committee for Programme and Coordination.

Regarding the one vacancy remaining from among the African States and the one vacancy remaining from among the Western Europe and other States held over from a previous session, the General Assembly will be in a position to act on them upon the nomination by the Economic and Social Council of one Member State from each of those two regions.

I therefore propose that the Assembly keep this sub-item on the agenda of the fifty-third session.

If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Assembly agrees to that procedure.

The President

We have thus concluded this stage of our consideration of sub-item (a) of agenda item 16.

The President

As indicated in document A/53/109, the General Assembly is required during the fifty-third session to appoint a member to fill the vacancy on the Joint Inspection Unit that will arise from the expiration of the term of office on 31 December 1999 of Mr. Sumihiro Kuyama of Japan.

As also indicated in document A/53/109, in accordance with article 3, paragraph 1, of the statute of the Joint Inspection Unit, the President of the General Assembly shall consult with Member States to draw up a list of countries -- in this case, one country -- that would be requested to propose a candidate for appointment to the Joint Inspection Unit.

After holding the necessary consultations, I should like to communicate to the Assembly the information, received from the Chairman of the Group of Asian States, that the Group of Asian States has agreed that Japan should propose one candidate for the vacancy.

In accordance with article 3, paragraph 1, of the statute of the Joint Inspection Unit, Japan will therefore be requested to propose a candidate and a curriculum vitae highlighting the candidate's relevant qualifications for the task ahead.

After holding the appropriate consultations described in article 3, paragraph 2, of the statute of the Joint Inspection Unit, including consultations with the President of the Economic and Social Council and with the Secretary-General in his capacity as Chairman of the Administrative Committee on Coordination, I will submit to the Assembly a qualified candidate for appointment to the Joint Inspection Unit.

We have thus concluded this stage of our consideration of sub-item (h) of agenda item 17.

The President

I give the floor to the representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to introduce draft resolution A/53/L.7/Rev.1.

Mr. Dorda (Libya)

In the aftermath of the collapse, almost a decade ago, of the international balance -- or, in the terms used by some, when the cold war ended -- people of goodwill believed that the era of tensions, conflicts, wars and the arms race was for ever gone. They believed that the international community could breathe a little easier; that the world would witness a new phase in its history, a phase of constructive cooperation; that savings and revenues would be devoted to development and to the achievement of progress within a framework of complementary action. This was their optimistic explanation of the other term they coined, "the new world order". However, no sooner had the people of goodwill awakened from their daydreams than they realized that what had really happened and what was taking place on the ground was different from their expectations and hopes.

Their dreams rapidly evaporated. They realized that they had no time even for daydreaming. Instead of one cold war, they witnessed the eruption of, or caused to erupt, several "hot" wars that consumed the blood of innocent human beings. Some of these wars were stopped and some temporarily abated. Some of them are still raging and some simmering. However, all of them have taken human lives in numbers too high to count and have left behind incalculable damage and destruction. All the losses have yet to be tallied. The only increases have been in the membership of the United Nations, the number of refugee camps and the number of hungry and orphaned. The sigh of relief has given way in this era to confusion, fear and anxiety caused by pressures, threats and orders imposed from above.

Instead of constructive cooperation, an era of embargoes, boycotts and economic blockades was ushered in. In terms of both human and material casualties, the victims of this era may surpass in numbers the victims of destructive wars. After all these years have elapsed, and since the collapse of international balance -- or as the others may say, "the end of the cold war" -- all dreams, hopes, and wishes have indeed evaporated. There was a stark new awakening to the light of a bitter truth.

The international community realized that the victor of a non-war -- the so-called cold war -- had decided to put its political, economic, cultural and social stamp on the world. The world would merely have to listen and obey. This applies even to the victor's closest allies. That victor also decided that its interests came above and before everyone else's interests, even those who shared common interests with that victor.

The victor in the cold war believed that the international situation had become ripe for it to dictate its conditions and issue its orders so that it could re-draw the world map in a manner that would guarantee its own interests before the rise of any kind of international equilibrium or balance, and could pre-empt the rise of such a balance.

Now, those countries that disobey the aforementioned orders and try to build their own societies based on their own particularities, and as an extension of their own roots, or based on their intellectual convictions or political and economic options, are qualified as "rogue States". Orders were issued to freeze the assets and funds of such countries that were invested in the country concerned. Even their imports, which were fully paid for and which met all applicable international legal conditions, were frozen. Then laws were enacted which would punish the rest of the countries of the world if they dealt with these countries or if their dealings with them exceeded a certain limit.

It is indeed a new world order. But why all of this?

Let us reply to this question by raising some questions of our own: First, why was Libya not punished before 1 September 1969, the date of its revolution? Second, was this due to the fact that before that date, Libya had accepted the establishment of military bases on its soil? Was it because after that date Libya cleared out those bases, liberating its land and skies? Third, was it because before that date Libya had signed concessions with American oil companies that focused on the interests of those companies at the expense of the interests of the Libyan people? And because after that date, Libya corrected all mistakes retroactively, thus restoring to the Libyan people their usurped rights?

Fourth, was it because Libya, prior to that date, had accepted being an occupied dependency when the treaty concluded with the United States deprived Libya of the simplest elements of sovereignty over its own territory? At that time, Libyan police could not apprehend the pilots who used Libyan shepherds and their sheep as training targets and killed them. Libya's prosecutorial authorities were unable to investigate, and its courts were unable to try, the culprits for their premeditated crimes. Even children were not spared these training runs. As a result, a young girl named Emmetika was killed, together with a number of other children. The air base, formerly known as Wheelus Air Base, now carries the name Emmetika as a sign of respect commemorating her and all those martyrs who were killed by aerial bombardment or under the wheels of vehicles driven by clearly inebriated soldiers and officers from American military bases. These incidents are documented with dates and places. We can provide this information via the Internet so that it will be known for sure that we are not falsely accusing anyone.

Was this also due to the fact that, after that date, Libya achieved true independence and freed its decision-making from any dependence on anyone? Fifth, where are the human rights of those martyrs? Are they not human beings like any other human beings? Or, perhaps, human rights, too, have taken their leave?

Sixth, why was Iran not punished before its Islamic Revolution? Why is it being punished now? Seventh, why was the Shah of Iran supported at a time when he was filling all prisons with all free men and all those who differed with him in opinion, and while his intelligence service -- the SAVAK -- was the most infamous organ of suppression in the second half of this century? Perhaps that was not terrorism, because it was in the service of the interests of those who made the Shah the policeman in the area against those who did care for the interests of their homeland, Iran. Human rights at the time must have been in some sort of coma.

Eighth, why are Iran's assets frozen? Why is an embargo imposed against it and against those who cooperate with it for good and prosperity? Is it because Iran decided to be independent and refrained from performing the role of the policeman previously performed by the Shah? Is it because Iran decided to be the master of its own destiny? Or is it perhaps because it returned to its roots and its religion and decided to shed all that is alien to it?

Ninth, why is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea being punished? Who fought against whom? Which divided itself from the other? Which is standing against reunification with the other? Why do we not leave every society to itself, to decide its own destiny, without any interference?

Viet Nam and Germany are good living examples. Until recently, the call for the unification of Germany could have been called an aberration. My country did not fear being accused of such an aberration. Our leader, from the rostrum of the Non-Aligned Movement summit in Belgrade, called for the reunification of Germany. Those who did not have political vision, those who did not read human history and thus were unable to absorb its lessons, were surprised at such a call. Yet Germany today is one united country. Social facts impose themselves on events of both history and geography. But who is able to learn such lessons?

Tenth, why is the Sudan being punished now? Is it because it is no longer Numayri's Sudan? Or because it is laying the basis for a path linking it to its own roots, history and environment? Maybe that is why the Sudan is being strangled. Or is it because the democracy of religious sects was better than the existing political regime in the Sudan? Does anybody have the right to impose a political formula on others? From where did they acquire such a right? Who gave them such a mandate? And why did the United States exclude Arabic gum products from the embargo? Perhaps Arabic gum is not Sudanese.

Eleventh, why is Cuba being punished? The statement made several days ago in this Hall by the Foreign Minister of Cuba gave all the answers to that question.

The acceptance of the right of a certain country to enact and implement extraterritorial laws could set a precedent for all other countries, enabling them to enact similar extraterritorial laws and to try to give them effect. In this case, would the world in which we live be civilized, or would it become a jungle?

Among the options that cannot be precluded is the fact that the producers of any given commodity, and especially raw materials, could be forced to establish special organizations among themselves to preserve their interests in the international market, be they agricultural, mineral or other. Such action would be justifiable by a number of objective considerations, not to mention the interests of those concerned. Various regions might be forced to set up their own economic groupings and pressures would be ineffective because the situation has become one of life or death. Continents could soon become self-contained economic frameworks, regardless of all internal and external conditions. This is no longer an option -- it is now a very urgent and vital necessity.

The international community is called upon to do away with a precedent that could take the world to the brink of the unknown, with all its possible consequences and repercussions. I can understand that one member or even several members may have their own view of Libya; that is their right. Certainly, Libya has its own opinion of a certain country and even of several countries. Libya is, in turn, entitled to that opinion. However, the draft resolution before the Assembly today does not concern Libya alone and its wording is very clear to all. This is a common issue which concerns the entire international community. The voting will be on the subject matter, and not on Libya. Thus, it would be meaningless to agree to the content of the draft resolution and then to abstain from voting in favour of it. Any explanation of an abstention would also be absolutely meaningless.

The subject of the draft resolution relates to what is enacted by States, and not to what is enacted by the United Nations. Thus, this cannot justify or explain any abstention either. Those who support the content of the draft resolution must not fail to hit the green button when voting begins.

Mr. Donokusumo (Indonesia)

On behalf of the Group of 77 and China, I would like to make a few brief and general comments on this important draft resolution.

In this era of globalization and liberalization, the practice of imposing unilateral coercive measures of an extraterritorial nature has accrued additional serious dimensions and its impact can have devastating consequences for the affected countries. Such practices run counter to the imperatives of international cooperation for development and to the spirit of partnership being fostered in the increasingly interdependent world. Moreover, the imposition of such measures by one country on another contravenes international law and is totally incompatible, not only with international rules and regulations, but also with the principles of equal sovereignty, non-intervention and non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States.

As a result, such coercive actions prevent the affected countries from enjoying their equal and non-discriminatory rights in pursuing development and from freely expanding their international trade. In fact, resolution 1994/47 of the Commission on Human Rights states that such measures, unilaterally implemented against developing countries, hinder the full realization of all rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly the right of people to a minimum standard of living and development. In addition, in his subsequent report (E/CN.4/1995/43), responding to this resolution, the Secretary-General stated that the application of such measures is incompatible with the principle of international cooperation, has a negative impact on the economies of the developing countries suffering these measures, and constitutes a serious violation of the human rights of the affected individuals, groups and peoples.

For these purposes, the international community should work together, striving to ensure that countries refrain from such activities. In this regard, it is necessary to ensure that the World Trade Organization be kept free of political constraints and be economy-oriented. The international community should also seek to promote the right to development of all countries, in conformity with the principles and spirit of the United Nations and its Charter.

Mr. Wilmot (Ghana)

A few days ago, in this very Hall, the General Assembly adopted by an overwhelming majority a resolution on the necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba. Today, the Assembly is being called upon to consider the need to eliminate coercive economic measures as a means of political and economic compulsion.

Although, prima facie, the scope of the present agenda item is more general than that of the resolution adopted a few days ago, the underlying principles at stake are the same in the two cases. Consequently, the reasons which informed the massive condemnation of the economic embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba hold true for the elimination of coercive measures generally as a means of political and economic compulsion.

The main objective of all such measures is to prevent the targeted State or States from exercising their right to decide, voluntarily, their own political, economic and social systems. But that runs counter to the cardinal principle of the United Nations Charter, which upholds the sovereign equality of States and non-intervention and non-interference in their internal affairs.

Again, the legislation backing such measures, epitomized by the so-called Helms-Burton and D'Amato-Kennedy Acts passed by the United States Congress, have extraterritorial effects which adversely affect the sovereignty of third States, the legitimate interests of entities or persons under their jurisdiction and the freedom of trade and navigation. From that perspective, the legislation violates not only the principles and purposes of the United Nations and the norms of international law, but also freedom of international trade and navigation, which is enshrined in many international legal instruments, including those of the World Trade Organization.

Another feature of the measures in question, and the legislation backing them, is that they are unilateral in nature, taken without any regard whatsoever to the United Nations Charter principle requiring all Member States to refrain from the threat or use of force in their international relations or to the provisions of Chapter VI of the Charter, which call on Member States to settle disputes by peaceful means such as negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and judicial settlement.

We are also disturbed by the recent attempt to introduce new concepts of international law aimed at internationalizing the essential elements contained in extraterritorial laws through multilateral agreements. We reject outright all such attempts, as we do the present trend to strengthen and expand these elements through the Bretton Woods institutions. We also reaffirm our rejection of evaluations, certifications and other coercive measures used as a tool for pressurizing Member States.

There have been numerous resolutions in the past in which this Assembly has called upon Member States to take urgent and effective steps to end coercive economic measures in their international relations. Notable among them is General Assembly resolution 51/22 of 1996. At their recent summit meeting, held in Durban in September this year, the heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Movement reaffirmed their rejection of all such measures and of the enactment of extraterritorial laws as being incompatible with international law and the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. Earlier in the year, the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity also adopted a decision expressing concern at the continued imposition of extraterritorial coercive measures and calling for their elimination. Furthermore, on several occasions, the heads of State or Government at the Ibero-American Summits have called for the elimination of unilateral economic and trade measures by one State against another that affect the free flow of international trade. And just a few days ago, the entire European Union, speaking in this Assembly through its spokesman, the representative of Austria, expressed its vehement opposition to unilateral coercive legislation which has extraterritorial effects.

For all these reasons, my delegation calls once more upon States which apply unilateral coercive measures to put an immediate end to them. We also call on all States not to recognize any legislative enactments which back such measures.

We wish to conclude by reiterating that it is the inalienable right of every State, however small, however weak and however poor, to choose the political, economic and social system that it deems appropriate for the well-being of its people, in accordance with its own national plans, policies and priorities. No other State has the prerogative or the right to interfere in the exercise of such choice.

My delegation will vote in favour of draft resolution A/53/L.7/Rev.1.